[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/spinlock: Don't use pvqspinlock if only 1 vCPU


  • To: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:18:58 -0400
  • Autocrypt: addr=boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFH8CgsBEAC0KiOi9siOvlXatK2xX99e/J3OvApoYWjieVQ9232Eb7GzCWrItCzP8FUV PQg8rMsSd0OzIvvjbEAvaWLlbs8wa3MtVLysHY/DfqRK9Zvr/RgrsYC6ukOB7igy2PGqZd+M MDnSmVzik0sPvB6xPV7QyFsykEgpnHbvdZAUy/vyys8xgT0PVYR5hyvhyf6VIfGuvqIsvJw5 C8+P71CHI+U/IhsKrLrsiYHpAhQkw+Zvyeml6XSi5w4LXDbF+3oholKYCkPwxmGdK8MUIdkM d7iYdKqiP4W6FKQou/lC3jvOceGupEoDV9botSWEIIlKdtm6C4GfL45RD8V4B9iy24JHPlom woVWc0xBZboQguhauQqrBFooHO3roEeM1pxXjLUbDtH4t3SAI3gt4dpSyT3EvzhyNQVVIxj2 FXnIChrYxR6S0ijSqUKO0cAduenhBrpYbz9qFcB/GyxD+ZWY7OgQKHUZMWapx5bHGQ8bUZz2 SfjZwK+GETGhfkvNMf6zXbZkDq4kKB/ywaKvVPodS1Poa44+B9sxbUp1jMfFtlOJ3AYB0WDS Op3d7F2ry20CIf1Ifh0nIxkQPkTX7aX5rI92oZeu5u038dHUu/dO2EcuCjl1eDMGm5PLHDSP 0QUw5xzk1Y8MG1JQ56PtqReO33inBXG63yTIikJmUXFTw6lLJwARAQABzTNCb3JpcyBPc3Ry b3Zza3kgKFdvcmspIDxib3Jpcy5vc3Ryb3Zza3lAb3JhY2xlLmNvbT7CwXgEEwECACIFAlH8 CgsCGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEIredpCGysGyasEP/j5xApopUf4g 9Fl3UxZuBx+oduuw3JHqgbGZ2siA3EA4bKwtKq8eT7ekpApn4c0HA8TWTDtgZtLSV5IdH+9z JimBDrhLkDI3Zsx2CafL4pMJvpUavhc5mEU8myp4dWCuIylHiWG65agvUeFZYK4P33fGqoaS VGx3tsQIAr7MsQxilMfRiTEoYH0WWthhE0YVQzV6kx4wj4yLGYPPBtFqnrapKKC8yFTpgjaK jImqWhU9CSUAXdNEs/oKVR1XlkDpMCFDl88vKAuJwugnixjbPFTVPyoC7+4Bm/FnL3iwlJVE qIGQRspt09r+datFzPqSbp5Fo/9m4JSvgtPp2X2+gIGgLPWp2ft1NXHHVWP19sPgEsEJXSr9 tskM8ScxEkqAUuDs6+x/ISX8wa5Pvmo65drN+JWA8EqKOHQG6LUsUdJolFM2i4Z0k40BnFU/ kjTARjrXW94LwokVy4x+ZYgImrnKWeKac6fMfMwH2aKpCQLlVxdO4qvJkv92SzZz4538az1T m+3ekJAimou89cXwXHCFb5WqJcyjDfdQF857vTn1z4qu7udYCuuV/4xDEhslUq1+GcNDjAhB nNYPzD+SvhWEsrjuXv+fDONdJtmLUpKs4Jtak3smGGhZsqpcNv8nQzUGDQZjuCSmDqW8vn2o hWwveNeRTkxh+2x1Qb3GT46uzsFNBFH8CgsBEADGC/yx5ctcLQlB9hbq7KNqCDyZNoYu1HAB Hal3MuxPfoGKObEktawQPQaSTB5vNlDxKihezLnlT/PKjcXC2R1OjSDinlu5XNGc6mnky03q yymUPyiMtWhBBftezTRxWRslPaFWlg/h/Y1iDuOcklhpr7K1h1jRPCrf1yIoxbIpDbffnuyz kuto4AahRvBU4Js4sU7f/btU+h+e0AcLVzIhTVPIz7PM+Gk2LNzZ3/on4dnEc/qd+ZZFlOQ4 KDN/hPqlwA/YJsKzAPX51L6Vv344pqTm6Z0f9M7YALB/11FO2nBB7zw7HAUYqJeHutCwxm7i BDNt0g9fhviNcJzagqJ1R7aPjtjBoYvKkbwNu5sWDpQ4idnsnck4YT6ctzN4I+6lfkU8zMzC gM2R4qqUXmxFIS4Bee+gnJi0Pc3KcBYBZsDK44FtM//5Cp9DrxRQOh19kNHBlxkmEb8kL/pw XIDcEq8MXzPBbxwHKJ3QRWRe5jPNpf8HCjnZz0XyJV0/4M1JvOua7IZftOttQ6KnM4m6WNIZ 2ydg7dBhDa6iv1oKdL7wdp/rCulVWn8R7+3cRK95SnWiJ0qKDlMbIN8oGMhHdin8cSRYdmHK kTnvSGJNlkis5a+048o0C6jI3LozQYD/W9wq7MvgChgVQw1iEOB4u/3FXDEGulRVko6xCBU4 SQARAQABwsFfBBgBAgAJBQJR/AoLAhsMAAoJEIredpCGysGyfvMQAIywR6jTqix6/fL0Ip8G jpt3uk//QNxGJE3ZkUNLX6N786vnEJvc1beCu6EwqD1ezG9fJKMl7F3SEgpYaiKEcHfoKGdh 30B3Hsq44vOoxR6zxw2B/giADjhmWTP5tWQ9548N4VhIZMYQMQCkdqaueSL+8asp8tBNP+TJ PAIIANYvJaD8xA7sYUXGTzOXDh2THWSvmEWWmzok8er/u6ZKdS1YmZkUy8cfzrll/9hiGCTj u3qcaOM6i/m4hqtvsI1cOORMVwjJF4+IkC5ZBoeRs/xW5zIBdSUoC8L+OCyj5JETWTt40+lu qoqAF/AEGsNZTrwHJYu9rbHH260C0KYCNqmxDdcROUqIzJdzDKOrDmebkEVnxVeLJBIhYZUd t3Iq9hdjpU50TA6sQ3mZxzBdfRgg+vaj2DsJqI5Xla9QGKD+xNT6v14cZuIMZzO7w0DoojM4 ByrabFsOQxGvE0w9Dch2BDSI2Xyk1zjPKxG1VNBQVx3flH37QDWpL2zlJikW29Ws86PHdthh Fm5PY8YtX576DchSP6qJC57/eAAe/9ztZdVAdesQwGb9hZHJc75B+VNm4xrh/PJO6c1THqdQ 19WVJ+7rDx3PhVncGlbAOiiiE3NOFPJ1OQYxPKtpBUukAlOTnkKE6QcA4zckFepUkfmBV1wM Jg6OxFYd01z+a+oL
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 19:19:00 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 07/19/2018 09:48 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On a VM with only 1 vCPU, the locking fast paths will always be
> successful. In this case, there is no need to use the the PV qspinlock
> code which has higher overhead on the unlock side than the native
> qspinlock code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c b/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
> index cd97a62..38f47ae 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c
> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ void xen_uninit_lock_cpu(int cpu)
>  void __init xen_init_spinlocks(void)
>  {
>  
> -     if (!xen_pvspin) {
> +     /*  Don't need to use pvqspinlock code if there is only 1 vCPU. */
> +     if (!xen_pvspin || num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
>               printk(KERN_DEBUG "xen: PV spinlocks disabled\n");
>               return;
>       }


I think we need to set xen_pvspin to false for such configurations.
Notice that xen_init_lock_cpu() will try to perform some additional
pvspinlock initializations.


-boris

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.